Can anyone show a single piece of viable evidence a GOD exists?

and you.

 

Proof should be easy for anyone following the Torah as part of their faith and the same for other faiths, prove events of the Supernatural actually happened using one of the many rational sciences.

Geology for the Great Deluge

Archeology for the Exodus

etc.

We have yet to see a black hole but we have clear theories they should exist, and have astronomy demonstrating very strong evidence they exist like high speed orbits around some very high stellar mass object in the center of our own galaxy that is so powerful it is far more likely than not a Black Hole of supermassive force. If we can demonstrate that and more likely than not rule it as anything but a Black Hole then you should easily prove claims in the Torah.

Or the Hindu faith or the tribal native faiths around the world and so forth all I need for you to do is prove one is more likely than not true and rule out other explanations and I will give there is a divine force around at least, and this replicated evidence others can confirm with proper credentials.

I haven't seen such evidence yet.

 

That is so sweet of you to think that I too am special.

 

Well thank you.

I try.

AboveAlpha

 

dittto

 

So god made people dumb, and then punished the people for being dumb?

 

People are dumb because they are lazy.... too lazy to learn.... which includes being too lazy to learn what the scripture says. Undoubtedly you will not be able to show a scripture that will support your claim. So, if your claim is true, then you are admitting to being dumb. I won't argue with that.

 

If you admit I am dumb by my statement, then it means you are also dumb. Are you sure you want to admit that?

So god created dumb AND lazy people, and then punishes them for being dumb and lazy?

Or god created lazy people, and then punishes them for being lazy?

Still the same concept.

 

In either of your scenarios relating to what God has done, there is the admission that God does exist and that God did create man. Are you sure you want to do that?

 

It's a hypothetical scenario, so it implies/admits nothing, there is no evidence to support god exists. I was simply trying to point out the logical fallacies of making man the way he is and then punishing man for being that way. That just seems very evil.

I apologize. I was using the same tactic on my last post. I will try to avoid it in the future.

 

No, the psychotic atheists do not experience it. I would imagine if they did a study of atheists, there is a higher percentage of sociopaths in that group, than when compared to the people who go to church. Sociopathy may be a major contributing factor in atheism. LOL

I would like to do an experiment using hard line atheists. I want to give them a round of ayahuasca, and then document the changes in their thinking. It has been proven to help other mental problems, like shell shock, and it might actually help these guys out as well.

Since DMT is probably responsible for many religions arising, it might be helpful for the atheists. I always wanted to give Dawkins a session with this stuff, at least a dozen or so trips, so he could get his head right. LOL. They say it is a great cure for atheism. Sort of a smart pill of sorts. LOL

 

Then your questions are also hypothetical and mean nothing. Logical fallacies? Who determines whether or not something is a logical fallacy? Me, you, somebody else? (I borrowed that line of question from another member.... because it is an effective question.)

 

While I am not an atheist, but more of an agnostic, as I think the answer to the question of god is unknowable, using thought as the process, I do see the absurdity of these fundamentalist beliefs that some Christians have. First God creates man, and being all knowing, he knows man will fall from grace, and then be doomed to sin, born into it, as it were. So he creates a being who he knows will sin. Now, after doing that, he will boil their balls in oil for all of eternity, if man does not ask to be forgiven, of what god created him to do, from the get go. It's like a man who owns the only car factory where you can buy cars, then makes them to do no less than 5 miles per hour, and then he is also the judge and the giver of law, that sets the speed limit at 3 miles an hour. So that all will break his law, and be punished, as he hands out the judgements of the people who break the speed limit. Now, that is utter absurdity, which means if god is not absurd, somehow we do not have the coherent understanding of the bible. And that could very well be. Man may have corrupted the bible, since man wrote it.

So, believing in a God, has to require a logical, rational sensible god being the ruler of this universe. Otherwise, you would have to take leave of your senses in order to believe in the god as people believe in, using the bible as the source of information. So, the traditional fundamentalists beliefs appear to be pure rubbish, and people with good brains just cannot accept that such a god could exist. I don't believe he does, not as the fundamentalists imagine him to be.


But here is the rub. In order to not question those silly beliefs, the bible demands that you have faith, and therefore never question these images given to us by the bible. And that sir, is the oldest confidence game in the world, to demand that people take leave of their senses. And to ignore, to not use the brain that god gave to man. Why did he give us such superior brains? So as not to use them? No, he expected us to use them, logically rationally with reason. And if he does, then this idea of accepting the absurd on faith, is not something he would have ever done. So who would have done it? How about some jackwagon who wanted to control people, in the way he saw fit, and then used this old con game in order to achieve it? Now that makes logical and rational sense, using the brain to arrive there. SO, that is what must have happened.

If a religion is filled with utter nonsense, it is up to man to sift through it, to find the diamonds in the pile of dung, and to reject the ludicrous,the absurd. That is probably one of the reasons man has the sort of brain that he does. So that he can use it, to find out the truth of religion. Otherwise god wasted his time in giving us such brains, which he would then say not to use, to just have faith in the ludicrous. Makes no sense at all. And if it does not make sense, we at least have the capacity to reject it.

My sense says, god would not have done it the way the fundamentalists believe. For god is not the village idiot, nor is he the confidence man who runs scams on his creation. So, use the brain given us. And at least make religion finally make sense.

 

I could explain it, but I really don't want to type an entire semesters worth of info in a post. You are going to have to explore that one on your own. I am not here to teach logic. Based on you statement, I can conclude I have a superior knowledge base on the subject. I just completed my second semester of Logic in college.

This book might be helpful and is a lighter read than my textbooks were (and it's cheap)...
http://www.amazon.com/Crimes-Agains...19111500&sr=8-1&keywords=crimes+against+logic

 

LOL. I had to laugh. I think that amounts to most people's proof.

 

A funny thing I see is that people are often assigning values to God. Merciful, loving, vengeful, powerful, the creator of all things, the creator of anything...How do we know anything about what God is? There's no proof. We don't know anything about God, and we don't even know if there is one. We can't possibly say what God could or couldn't do, what he thinks, or what he did because there's no proof of anything.

The only thing we have to go on is fairly suspect testimonials like God comes to me and helps me through my problems and talks to me every day and every night. This is borderline insanity in my opinion, but you can't prove or disprove it. There's been killers who have said that they were acting on behalf of God, but somehow we know he was lying. How is that, exactly...?

 

So now you are wanting to lean on the teachings of other men/women as though they are the AUTHORITY on the subject? Well, what specifically does logic have to do with spirituality? Did you happen to run across that question in your second semester of Logic in college? It is well believed by a lot of non-theists that the Theists are an ill-logical bunch of people. Well, if that is the case, then why bother to bring to them arguments in logic? That is somewhat illogical in my perspective. Oh that's right... you are not here to teach logic, you are here to use logic as a weapon of ridicule of those that are considered by some as being illogical. Is your logic able to defeat the meanings of words? No? Does logic teach you to make statements that are illogical? (You are not debating you are arguing.) Does the definition of 'proof' mean anything in logic? What does 'proof' mean in the Dictionary of Logic? You said that the definitions I cited were irrelevant to the discussion. Is it not the purpose of debate to 'win' the debate by showing 'proof' that the opponent was mistaken, in error, or had made a false statement? Is it not the purpose of debate to convince (cause the other person to accept your assertions as true) the opponent that you are correct? Speaking of books that might be helpful.... here is one for you: www.tfd.com BTW... it is free... no soliciting allowed on the forum.

 

Like I said. I am not going to teach you logic, or point out all of the fallacies in that sarcastic paragraph.

I do recognize the authority of experts in their fields, so yes I lean on that. They are usually more knowledgeable than I am.

Religion was always a good and common topic for demonstrating fallacies in my logic class.

Spirituality is a loose term. How about "religion"? Religion is contradicted by logic, so it has a lot to do with it. It also has to do with the main thread topic.

I agree that it is illogical to argue with theists as they are illogical, and I will most likely not change thier minds. However I think it improves my debating tactics and expands my knowledge of topics.

My logic is not able to defeat the meaning of words, because English has many loosely used terms, grey areas, English evolves, definitions change. Many definitions fall into a "fuzzy set". Which you would know about if you knew logic. This is in reply to the second half of the paragraph of questions.

 

My statement is justified because you admit that you lean on others to teach you and that they are more qualified than you are. So, in actuality, I am glad that you are not here to teach logic. Let us know when you are then qualified to lecture others on the subject of logic.

That does not address the question. I had asked what specifically does logic have to do with spirituality. I said nothing about "Religion".

No! How about 'spirituality'? Stay focused. Some could argue that science is a religion.

Still speculating and are still uncertain of the outcome of that endeavor.

Have you tried using a different language as opposed to English? Do you think other languages are less loosely constructed in the meanings of their terms? What is a "fuzzy set"? Is that some special term that is used in logic?

 

Your conclusion is false, because there is no correlation between my statement about authority, and your statement about "justification"(which is not a logic term). Learning from masters in their feilds is the standard common practice for obtaining knowledge on a subject.

This is the religious way of thinking... Answers first, questions second, facts optional.

Isn't this thread about God? It is in the title! Spirituality is too loosely defined of a term to debate, so I clarified. But, spirituality debatably has to do with logic. I would say it does not. It does have to do with God when talking about evidence.

There are always exceptions to the rule. "Some" is not representative of common/accepted beliefs.

The grammar is too poor in this sentence to make sense.

"Fuzzy set" is a term used in Logic and Mathematics. The reason for adding the world "English" was to exclude all other languages form the argument. It does not say anything about the construction of other languages. All languages evolve.

 

I am doing my level best to persuade you to have a little integrity. Twice now you have stated that you are going to "block me" (presumably meaning that you are going to put me on your ignore list.), unfortunately,,, your integrity is not near as high as I had hoped it would be. Come on now... be a person of your word and live up to your words.

 

I am sorry, I could not find the block button. Perhaps you could point it out to me? I did make an honest effort to find it. You can check and see that I even visited your profile to look for it. Integrity intact

 

Try the profile page again, and this time read the left hand side bar near the top.

 

Are you familiar with the saying "they will be known by their works"? Why can't we know God (or at least the God someone claims) by the works attributed to them?

That's the problem, we don't know that they are lying. Whatever experience they have is no less valid than anyone else's.

 

they say yahweh is incomprehensible, but go on to comprehend him wholesale. attributing so many base human inclinations to him that they effectively de-godify him.

meantime, voices in head are apparently NOT insane when they're in your own head, but are insane in other people's heads. And you can give exemptions to anyone who attributes the voices in their head to the same supernatural that you favour, and if the voice issues pleasant platitudes.